Decision details

To take no further action.

This decision is taken under delegated powers set out in Paragraph 145 of the Officer Scheme of Delegation in the Council’s constitution, which grants delegated authority to undertake all action in order to regulate any actual, perceived or potential breach of any of the Town and Country Planning Legislation including:

To determine whether or not to take and/or to cease action whether because in his/her opinion the breach is trivial, there is insufficient demonstrable harm and/or, it is not expedient to take / continue to take action

This authority has been delegated to me through the Local Scheme of Nomination for the Executive Director for Place.

The three complaints have been addressed as a whole as the land concerned is the same, as is the contravener and the main complainant. All associated documents are available on the Dorset Council web pages. A full report with associated appendices is recorded on the enforcement record. However, this would be subject to GDPA restrictions and so cannot be published.

The land was originally a small property with a large greenhouse used to grow plants, presumably to support the adjacent Island Gardens Nursery. Permission WP/14/00189/FUL gave permission for a new dwelling to be built in the land. This development did not take place.

In 2015 the land was acquired by the current owner. After the submission of a pre-app, a subsequent application was submitted and permission was given to build a dwelling with an associated stable. WP/16/00217/FUL.

Conditions required commencement of the development within 3 years from November 1^st 2016 and adherence to approved plans. These showed the removal of the existing stables and a greenhouse.

In 2017 a successful Variation of Condition, WP/17/00311/VOC, effectively severed the link between the house and the stables.

In January 2018 the land was severed, with the central section where the dwelling was to be built being acquired by the complainant. Planning permission WP/18/00643/FUL was granted in December 2018 on that central portion of land for a new dwelling.

A number of applications were made regarding the remaining land where the stables were to be built, but these were all refused. The stables were eventually constructed and subject to a complaint in July 2021 regarding the construction materials, but this was resolved.

In October 2022 a complaint was made regarding the re-cladding of the greenhouse that abuts the house to the north. This construction remained on the original footprint of the northern most part of the original greenhouse, and the recladding with green metal was considered de minimus.

The original owner acquired the Island Nursery, a small commercial enterprise to the south of the whole plot, as well as a number of adjacent fields. The land in ownership now being an agricultural holding, is about 35 acres. The provision of an outbuilding on the Island Gardens Nursery site is of such a size as to be considered as ancillary to the agricultural use of the land. This was subsequently used as a café during 2023 and considered by the owner’s agent as being incidental to the nursery, but shut down by the owner after correspondence suggested that such use would not be considered as ancillary and a separate application should be made if such use was to re-commence.

The owner has been in correspondence with this officer regarding these matters over a number of months, and he has apparently taken advice regarding these items as well as other matters which, at this time, appear to have been resolved. It has been suggested that both the stable block now in situ as well as the newly clad greenhouse would require retrospective planning applications made to regularise their development. No applications have been made in these matters

A copy of this report was sent to DC Legal department as well as the planning officer, who was dealing with a number of other applications regarding the land to the north of the dwelling which is occupied by the stables and re-clad greenhouse. The response received suggested that in principle the developments would be acceptable in planning terms, and the only concern was that of flood risk, so the Environment Agency should be consulted.

The Environment Agency were contacted and the response was that although the structures were within Flood Zone 2, they were ‘not so much of a concern’. A further application had subsequently been approved, (P/FUL/2024/01613) which allowed the provision of a car park on the land, with conditions including the provision of bridges across the river. These bridges, allowing access to the Island Gardens Nursery, were subject to an application. (P/PAP2/2024/01869) and prior approval was granted.

Subsequent correspondence with Senior Enforcement Officer and Legal advisor agreed that due to subsequent approvals for developments upon the land, and without any indication that any substantial planning harm was being caused by the breaches of planning control, it would not be expedient to take enforcement action.

The alternative option would be to pursue formal enforcement action. However, due to this matter being of low planning harm and likelihood of a planning application being approved, it is not expedient to pursue formal action. This is in line with Government guidance which suggests that Local Planning Authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.

No